The Supreme Court has launched administrative disbarment proceedings against Quezon City 4th District Representative Bong Suntay and high-profile Atty. Ferdinand Topacio following widespread public outrage over inappropriate remarks directed at actresses Anne Curtis and Jasmine Curtis-Smith.
In a per curiam resolution, the high tribunal ruled that the public statements made by both lawyers potentially breached the ethical standards expected of legal professionals.
The court has given Suntay and Topacio a 10-day deadline to submit a formal explanation defending themselves against the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
The controversy originated during a March 3 House Committee on Justice hearing regarding the impeachment complaints filed against Vice President Sara Duterte.
Attempting to draw a legal distinction between internal thoughts and criminal actions while defending the Vice President, Suntay used a hypothetical scenario involving Anne Curtis.
“Alam n’yo minsan, nakita ko si Anne Curtis, ang ganda-ganda pala niya. You know, may desire sa loob ko na, nag-init talaga, na-imagine ko na lang kung ano’ng puwedeng mangyari pero siyempre hanggang imagination na lang ‘yon,” Suntay stated during the session.
He defended his statement by adding, “Pero hindi naman siguro ako puwedeng kasuhan kung ano ang na-imagine ko eh.”
Suntay has since insisted that the comment was strictly a legal analogy, denying any malicious or immoral intentions.
The backlash intensified when Topacio publicly backed Suntay’s logic during a radio broadcast. Topacio claimed that female celebrities, specifically citing Jasmine Curtis-Smith, invite sexual attention by sharing bikini photos on the internet.
During the same interview, Topacio also admitted to having previously had sexual thoughts about Gabriela Party-list Representative Sarah Jane Elago, fueling further public condemnation.
The Supreme Court strongly condemned the behavior, emphasizing that members of the bar are bound to maintain the highest levels of morality and decorum.
The tribunal noted that such public remarks damage the integrity of the legal profession and diminish public confidence in lawyers. Both respondents now risk being stripped of their licenses to practice law if their upcoming explanations fail to satisfy the court.